Jump to content

Talk:Hikari Ōe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit]

Somebody vandalized the page. I put back the previous version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.61.128 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 13 November 2005

Categorization within disability categories

[edit]

The article’s categorization within the WP “Category:People on the autism spectrum” might seem redundant with WP “Category:Autistic savants,” but it remains an accurate description of the subject’s diagnosis of autism. If an individual was diagnosed with Asperger syndrome, as many have, would there be any objection to categorizing such an article within the WP “Category:People on the autism spectrum” AND the WP “Category:People with Asperger syndrome?” Of course, not. The subject’s autism is independent and separate from his savantism as much as the subject’s diagnosed autism and various other diagnosed conditions such as blindness and epilepsy.24.11.116.253 (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I must respectfully disagree. The relationship between the two categories is much simpler than that. "Autistic savant" implies "person on the autism spectrum", and indeed that category is already categorized as such. Only in certain cases are redundancies in categorization allowed on Wikipedia, e.g. Category:Given names has two subcategories for male and female given names, all of whose member pages are still tagged with "Given names" in general "for convenience", per the template at the top of the page of the parent category. That makes it easier for someone to search for a given name without having to know which gender it's intended for, for example. (The category has many other subcategories, most if not all of whose members are also "redundantly" categorized in the parent category.) Regarding the relationship between Asperger's and general autism, there is much debate over whether Asperger's is just another location along the same spectrum, with consensus increasingly leaning in the direction of saying it is, so I respectfully don't think your reasoning is so iron-clad. You may have a point that his intelligence/savantism is not necessarily caused by his autism, but I would reply that autistic savantism is a specific form of autism characterized by such intelligence.
All that being said, if the subject were not diagnosed specifically as a savant, and no psychiatric expert has certified that he is specifically an autistic savant, the categorization should be reversed - i.e. remove the savants category and reinstate the original "autism spectrum" category, as keeping the savant category is original research. Having read the article in its current revision, I conclude that assessing him as a savant has been done only on an OR basis and should be removed. My original edit was only for the sake of reducing redundancy in categorization; in the process of making such edits I do not check to ensure that what remains is not original research, as that is not my aim and is best left to editors experienced in the relevant subject area. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: This may not be a relevant point, but by my count only half of the members of Category:Autistic savants are also members of the parent category. May I respectfully request that this not be changed by either of us until a consensus is achieved? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One good example of my assertion is the article about the subject Daniel Tammet. The article has been categorized variously several times within the WP “Category:People on the autism spectrum” and the “Category:People with Asperger syndrome” for almost as long as the article has been published here. It has also been categorized within BOTH categories at times. And yet, Tammet himself made it quite clear in his autobiography that he was originally diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome early in his life while being diagnosed much later as the world’s only “prodigious” autistic savant. But, should his earlier diagnosis be ignored simply because the diagnosis of savantism uses the term “autistic?” I understand that the DSM-5 (and pending ICD-11) diagnostic criteria now enroll Asperger Syndrome into the Autism Spectrum, but, for many people (particularly those diagnosed years ago with Asperger Syndrome), it is quite unsettling to learn that their previous diagnostic name is no longer “valid.” We must recognize that, for many in that group of previously diagnosed “Aspies,” they built a community for themselves using that name. This was vigorously debated at the 2015 IMFAR International Meeting for Autism Research conference by no less than Simon Baron-Cohen, Ph.D., and Roy Richard Grinker, Ph.D., during a discussion of the topic of diagnostic names and their affect on the people who bear such names. A lot of emotion and real-world supports are invested by people who, like Tammet, were diagnosed early with Asperger Syndrome only to have their diagnosis erased and converted into something else. While it is true that diagnoses change, we should tred lightly when changing the fact that these individuals WERE diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome (or, in Hikari Ōe's case Autism or Autism Spectrum Disorder) before they were diagnosed with savantism. The two independent diagnoses combine to make interesting results (“a specific form of autism characterized by such intelligence”), but aren’t one and the same. I believe that any WP article should respect all relevant diagnoses as reported accurately, not only the most recently combined or retitled version.24.11.116.253 (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They don't have to be one and the same, but one follows from the other. Autistic savantism implies autism, so if the individual were verifiably diagnosed as such, I still believe that using both categories at once is redundant. I don't think anyone said anything about getting rid of the names of old diagnoses; I certainly never did. I never meant to imply that the name of Asperger syndrome would be discarded - given tradition, I don't think it would. It is merely the categorization of this condition that is under dispute, and the name may be retained as a means of shorthand to denote a higher-functioning variety of autism than other forms along the same spectrum. I don't think the name is going anywhere.
The problem isn't one of identity. Yes, a subculture appears to have been built around this naming convention, but for Wikipedia's purposes, we sometimes have to ignore feelings in order to operate in the most efficient manner possible. In this case, yes, it is true that at one time Asperger's was not considered a form of autism, yet now it is. And it does come to occupy a central position in the identity of a number of individuals who have the condition. We must be cautious, however, that we are not favoring one viewpoint over another. It may not be what certain people want, but our beliefs and desires have no impact on the truth. So even if this recategorization does not sit well with some people, that will have to be ignored for science to move forward, which is the sole impetus on which the recategorization was done. It was never done to step on anyone's toes; it was done to make future psychiatric practice as helpful as possible. Nobody is saying that because of this recategorization the name will be abandoned or that the subculture will have to disappear.
I believe what you are trying to say is that autism and autistic savantism are not the same thing, and I would agree for the most part. It is true that having autism does not imply that one is an autistic savant, but the reverse relationship is true. It does not have to work both ways for the use of both categories on a single person's article to be redundant. Diagnoses can be a complex affair, and indeed it can even fluctuate for the same patient from one doctor to the next even if both have personally surveyed said patient. We can only go with what is in reliable sources, and if it has been confirmably published by a reputable authority that the subject of this article is an autistic savant, we should categorize the article as such.
I would give more credit to what you say if we had more subcategories within Category:People on the autism spectrum, though the only other subcategory is for fictional characters. Another valid point you seem to be raising is that whatever comes with being a savant is not the only thing that makes an autistic savant an autistic person, and we are in agreement on that, but it appears to me that savantism doesn't affect just one area of an autistic person's life - it affects all of them. It appears that if a savant is exceptionally good at one thing, it comes at the expense of skill in other areas. But now we are getting into what qualifies as WP:OR territory until any of it is backed up by proof, which I do not have, being that I don't edit in psychology to begin with. I am only here to argue against overcategorization, and I don't believe it has yet been demonstrated that using both categories is the best way to go. Much as I have not demonstrated that savantism is defining to such an extreme degree that it would be sufficient for categorizing an article for an autistic person, it has not yet been demonstrated that both categories are necessary. I am merely going on what I see, which again is purely a matter of categorization as it currently works. Sadly, it's a lot less clear cut in fields like these; it's much easier to edit, say, music album articles, which is where I generally edit anyway, because they're concrete things that either are or are not a certain way.
But I must again stress that if the subject of this article were never diagnosed as an actual savant, it is foolhardy to keep that category on his article regardless. If that turns out to be the case, this discussion is moot with regard to this article and should probably be continued elsewhere. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 20:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hikari Ōe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hikari Ōe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hikari Ōe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hikari_Ōe&oldid=1204829172"